They make odd bedmates. But both agree. After thought, discussion and decision, the media and the Republican Party have voted the same.
Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008.
On Meet the Press last August, longtime Presidential advisor Karl Rove said, "The Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it's going to be her."
Likewise, President Bush recently told a Fox news contributor that Clinton will defeat Barack Obama for the nomination. "She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary," Bush said. "And therefore the person with the national presence…has got a good chance to be nominated."
Following suit, the Republican candidates have aimed their crosshairs on Clinton. Rudy Giuliani recently told the Associated Press, "I'm not running against my Republican opponents. I'm running against the Democrats." He added, "I'm the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton."
And then there's the media, whose long love affair with the entire Clinton family goes without saying. But when one can detect sincere warmth toward Clinton's policies (the thoughtfulness of her health plan, her surprising commitment to Iraq, her defiance of the netroots left) in the columns of conservative-leaning columnists such as David Brooks, one has to wonder—where have all the other candidates gone?
Apparently, there's no need for them. Apparently, Hillary Clinton can be all things to everyone. Look no further than her views of the Iraq War to see how well she can play both sides. Clinton utilizes time and again the "If I had known then what I know now…" line while refusing to say that were she president, U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.
In fact, Clinton refuses to say much of anything. What she does do is one thing: dodge, dodge, dodge. Clinton sidesteps question after question, issue after issue that would help voters figure out what exactly she stands for.
In a debate last week Clinton would not say whether or not Israel should bomb Iran if it posed a nuclear threat. Calling the question "hypothetical," she said, "That's better not addressed at this time."
Clinton refused to say what she would do about the moribund state of Social Security. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility," she said. "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president."
Clinton wouldn't even provide the names of the contributors to her husband's presidential library. "You'll have to ask them," she said. "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband."
Even the question of which team she would cheer for come playoff season — the Chicago Cubs or the New York Yankees — proved too challenging for Clinton. "Well, I would probably have to alternate sides," she said.
Clinton's evasiveness does nothing to help her image. What's more, it gives fuel to the ire felt against her. The woman is like ice. She doesn't believe in anything.
She's as inconstant and flighty as the electoral winds.
She will, Republicans say, win the primary. But the 2008 election she just won't win.
Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. But Clinton's evasiveness serves no one.
And unless she stops dodging and starts talking, Clinton stands to drive her campaign into the ground.
Reach the reporter at: rosie.servis@asu.edu.
